Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SilverNicktail t1_j8og3by wrote

Reply to comment by sazerrrac in Electric Vehicle Sales Top $1 Trillion in Wake Up Call for Carmakers by seascot

When you say "tipping point", do you mean majority share, or the tipping point for mass adoption? I've read several articles stating that we're beyond the point in the S-curve where mass adoption becomes rapid and inevitable.

I would hope that as more and more territories ban ICE car sales from 2035 or even 2030, and interim sales quotas are mandated, that no manufacturer is stupid enough to sit back on this one.

6

sazerrrac t1_j8oqbmp wrote

Mass adoption is definitely inevitable, and the growth rates of the EV market are huge, but buying an electric vehicle today is still not a straightforward decision - especially in single car households. The range and charging infrastructure doesn’t yet provide a credible alternative to that of internal combustion engines.

It’ll come though. As ranges and charging speeds improve, it’ll become as easy (if not easier) to charge your car than fill the fuel tank.

There are also challenges with costs. Batteries represent a huge proportion of the cost of the vehicles and don’t come cheap. So there’s also a bit of a chicken and egg situation when it comes to volumes and economies of scale. At the moment an EV often represents a more expensive initial outlay versus a traditional power train.

I’m sad. I could witter on about this stuff all day…

18

SilverNicktail t1_j8tfjgk wrote

> Mass adoption is definitely inevitable, and the growth rates of the EV market are huge, but buying an electric vehicle today is still not a straightforward decision - especially in single car households.

Sure, but the article is partly about that right?

> The range and charging infrastructure doesn’t yet provide a credible alternative to that of internal combustion engines.

Can't agree with all of this. I can buy a mainstream EV today with the same range as my ICE car, and the cities/highways around here have plenty of charging infrastructure. I would agree that it's something of a postcode lottery, and rural areas are naturally far less well served, but people in rural areas are also going to be set up far better for home charging.

> As ranges and charging speeds improve, it’ll become as easy (if not easier) to charge your car than fill the fuel tank.

I often say that it needs a change in thinking. I don't think the "gas station" setup is going to survive as it currently does. You'll charge your EV when doing something else - park and plug. A lot of have previously focused on charging times for EVs, but if you're spending a few hours watching a movie while it charges it suddenly matters a whole lot less. Of course, for long-distance it still matters a lot but the percentage of daily journeys that are beyond the range of an EV battery is tiny.

> At the moment an EV often represents a more expensive initial outlay versus a traditional power train.

Very true, but again that's kinda the point of the article ;-)

1

reidlos1624 t1_j8qf0pf wrote

Banning ICE use in city centers makes sense but the infrastructure can't support EVs outside of those ranges, comfortably, yet. Mass adoption to the point that the majority of vehicles sold (80-90%) would be enough that other areas of climate change would easily become a priority.

Even now, what is, 100 companies(?) produce 70% of the world's emissions? There's so much more that's needed than simply blanket bans on cars. If we can get emissions down from other areas we'd see significant improvements such that the small number of ICE (Hybrid) vehicles sold for rural transportation or as rentals for road trips wouldn't be a concern.

3

Winjin t1_j8st56a wrote

Also, far North. In Siberia the EVs are basically useless. No one has heated garages, and temperature can hit -30 for weeks, and go down to like -50s Celsius. Hybrids could be possible, but it's hard to outdo gas in this setup. Especially since it's also providing lots of heat

So, while close to the equator you can easily switch to EV for city use at least, in the north it's not always going to work. And I think it's also not that great when you live in a flat without easy access to a charger.

2

SilverNicktail t1_j8tfz4r wrote

> Even now, what is, 100 companies(?) produce 70% of the world's emissions?

This stat gets quoted a lot but it misrepresents the issue somewhat. The largest emission producing companies are - surprise surprise - fossil fuel producers, and IIRC the methodology included the transportation and consumption of that fuel. If we want to reduce their emissions, we have to have replacements for their demand.

Yes, legislate the shit out of them, but 20-25% of all worldwide emissions are from the transportation sector (including within those businesses). We need to replace that, as we are also doing in electricity generation.

Honestly I wish there was more focus on agriculture. It's by many metrics the most destructive sector - in terms of emissions, land usage, water usage, biodiversity loss, topsoil loss, etc.

2

reidlos1624 t1_j8ti0vp wrote

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think it needs to be reduced, but of that 27% (per US gov stats on CO2 for transportation) only 41% is passenger cars. So really, passenger vehicles are only 11% of CO2 emissions. It's not nothing but it's also not the largest contributor.

Point being it can be nonzero and still be effective. We don't need to ban all ICE options, we just need most people to move to alternatives so that the few people who have legitimate need for ICE can still use it.

1

SilverNicktail t1_j8u8x5b wrote

The ICE bans in place are for 2035, and even then only for new sales. I think we've got plenty of time to figure out alternatives for the edge cases where ICE stuff is still used.

2